UPC_COA_68/2026; UPC_CoA_72/2026 – Network v Qualcomm

Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Electronics/SEP
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

Confidentiality on appeal Facts 1. In first instance, the LD Mannheim had issued numerous confidentiality orders. 2. On appeal, Qualcomm wants confirmation that the orders stay in place. Order 1. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) of the Court of appeal confirms that these orders are still in place. 2. The JR wants Qualcomm to clarify if the documents mentioned in its Statement of Response and cross-appeal can be made available to the same persons authorized under the confidentiality orders of the LD. Qualcomm has to specify which pieces of information should be made available to whom and under which conditions. Comment 1. The first issue has already been answered many times. 2. What is not clear to the JR (and myself) is what Qualcomm exactly wants, i.e. whether the request for confidentiality is directed at information already filed in first-instance or at the new (confidential?) information filed with its appeal briefs. Before any unclarity leads to a breach of confidentiality, the JR is wisely asks for a clarification.

Key Holdings

  • Confidentiality orders issued by the Court of First Instance remain in place during appeal proceedings.
  • A party requesting confidentiality on appeal must specify whether the request applies to information already filed at first instance or to new information filed with appeal briefs.
  • The Judge-Rapporteur may require a party to clarify which specific pieces of information should be made available, to whom, and under which conditions to prevent potential breaches of confidentiality.

Tags

  • Confidentiality on appeal
  • Confidentiality
  • Judge-Rapporteur

Related Cases

View original decision